Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: George Peter Gatsis Date: Jun 23, 2010 4:31am
Forum: feature_films Subject: WTF... Court says its ok to take PD content back into (C) !!!???

Just read this...

http://techdirt.com/articles/20100621/2320049908.shtml


Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: HektorT Date: Jun 23, 2010 4:48pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: WTF... Court says its ok to take PD content back into (C) !!!???

But the plaintiff here is the "reliance parties" under GATT and they were just suing for the rights to continue using PD works that they had already been using when GATT came into effect. GATT required that they start to pay royalties.

If I understand correctly, even if they had won the case it wouldn't have changed the GATT provisions for non-reliance parties. In other words, this case in no way would have overturned GATT, except for those reliance parties.

Here's a more concise summary
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/6495

This post was modified by HektorT on 2010-06-23 23:48:05

This post was modified by HektorT on 2010-06-23 23:48:22

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Jun 23, 2010 5:11am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: WTF... Court says its ok to take PD content back into (C) !!!???

It's a setback, certainly. It will be appealed. I don't think that even our current, pro corporate Supreme Court will uphold that ruling. *crosses fingers*

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jonc Date: Jun 24, 2010 8:43am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: WTF... Court says its ok to take PD content back into (C) !!!???

That doesn't seem likely. I wasn't aware of this case, but "government interests," in this case a signed treaty, almost always trump individual rights in this court.

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)